|
|
|
|
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 5
|
What is your opinion on the issue of equal prize money at Wimbledon? This article written by Venus sums up my feelings on the matter. I posted one of these in both forums becuase I assumed that the MAJORITY of men would be in the ATP thread and vice versa for the WTA thread (I am not saying that this is a fact) and I wanted to see how the opinions in between men and women differentiated.
Wimbledon has sent me a message: I'm only a second-class champion
Venus Williams
The time has come for it to do the right thing: pay men and women equal prize money
HAVE YOU ever been let down by someone that you had long admired, respected and looked up to? Little in life is more disappointing, particularly when that person does something that goes against the very heart of what you believe is right and fair.
When I was a little girl, and Serena and I played matches together, we often pretended that we were in the final of a famous tournament. More often than not we imagined we were playing on the Centre Court at Wimbledon. Those two young sisters from Compton, California, were “Wimbledon champions” many times, years before our dreams of playing there became reality.
There is nothing like playing at Wimbledon; you can feel the footprints of the legends of the game — men and women — that have graced those courts. There isn’t a player who doesn’t dream of holding aloft the Wimbledon trophy. I have been fortunate to do so three times, including last year. That win was the highlight of my career to date, the culmination of so many years of work and determination, and at a time when most people didn’t consider me to be a contender.
So the decision of the All England Lawn Tennis Club yet again to treat women as lesser players than men — undeserving of the same amount of prize money — has a particular sting.
I’m disappointed not for myself but for all of my fellow women players who have struggled so hard to get here and who, just like the men, give their all on the courts of SW19. I’m disappointed for the great legends of the game, such as Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert, who have never stopped fighting for equality. And disappointed that the home of tennis is sending a message to women across the world that we are inferior.
With power and status comes responsibility. Well, Wimbledon has power and status. The time has come for it to do the right thing by paying men and women the same sums of prize money. The total prize pot for the men’s events is £5,197,440; for the women it is £4,446,490. The winner of the ladies’ singles receives £30,000 less than the men’s winner; the runner-up £15,000 less, and so on down to the first-round losers.
How can it be that Wimbledon finds itself on the wrong side of history? How can the words Wimbledon and inequality be allowed to coexist? I’ve spent my life overcoming challenges and those who said certain things couldn’t be achieved for this or that reason. My parents taught me that dreams can come true if you put in the effort. Maybe that’s why I feel so strongly that Wimbledon’s stance devalues the principle of meritocracy and diminishes the years of hard work that women on the tour have put into becoming professional tennis players.
I believe that athletes — especially female athletes in the world’s leading sport for women — should serve as role models. The message I like to convey to women and girls across the globe is that there is no glass ceiling. My fear is that Wimbledon is loudly and clearly sending the opposite message: 128 men and 128 women compete in the singles main draw at Wimbledon; the All England Club is saying that the accomplishments of the 128 women are worth less than those of the 128 men. It diminishes the stature and credibility of such a great event in the eyes of all women.
The funny thing is that Wimbledon treats men and women the same in so many other respects; winners receive the same trophy and honorary membership. And as you enter Centre Court, the two photographs of last year’s men’s and women’s champions are hung side by side, proudly and equally.
So why does Wimbledon choose to place a lesser value on my championship trophy than that of the 2005 men’s winner Roger Federer? The All England Club is familiar with my views on the subject; at Wimbledon last year, the day before the final, I presented my views to it and its French Open counterparts. Both clearly gave their response: they are firmly in the inequality for women camp.
Wimbledon has argued that women’s tennis is worth less for a variety of reasons; it says, for example, that because men play a best of five sets game they work harder for their prize money.
This argument just doesn’t make sense; first of all, women players would be happy to play five sets matches in grand slam tournaments. Tim Phillips, the chairman of the All England Club, knows this and even acknowledged that women players are physically capable of this.
Secondly, tennis is unique in the world of professional sports. No other sport has men and women competing for a grand slam championship on the same stage, at the same time. So in the eyes of the general public the men’s and women’s games have the same value.
Third, athletes are also entertainers; we enjoy huge and equal celebrity and are paid for the value we deliver to broadcasters and spectators, not the amount of time we spend on the stage. And, for the record, the ladies’ final at Wimbledon in 2005 lasted 45 minutes longer than the men’s. No extra charge.
Let’s not forget that the US Open, for 33 years, and the Australian Open already award equal prize money. No male player has complained — why would they?
Wimbledon has justified treating women as second class because we do more for the tournament. The argument goes that the top women — who are more likely also to play doubles matches than their male peers — earn more than the top men if you count singles, doubles and mixed doubles prize money. So the more we support the tournament, the more unequally we should be treated! But doubles and mixed doubles are separate events from the singles competition. Is Wimbledon suggesting that, if the top women withdrew from the doubles events, that then we would deserve equal prize money in singles? And how then does the All England Club explain why the pot of women’s doubles prize money is nearly £130,000 smaller than the men’s doubles prize money?
Equality is too important a principle to give up on for the sake of less than 2 per cent of the profit that the All England Club will make at this year’s tournament. Profit that men and women will contribute to equally through sold-out sessions, TV ratings or attraction to sponsors. Of course, one can never distinguish the exact value brought by each sex in a combined men’s and women’s championship, so any attempt to place a lesser value on the women’s contribution is an exercise in pure subjectivity.
Let’s put it another way, the difference between men and women’s prize money in 2005 was £456,000 — less than was spent on ice cream and strawberries in the first week. So the refusal of the All England Club, which declared a profit of £25 million from last year’s tournament, to pay equal prize money can’t be about cash. It can only be trying to make a social and political point, one that is out of step with modern society.
I intend to keep doing everything I can until Billie Jean’s original dream of equality is made real. It’s a shame that the name of the greatest tournament in tennis, an event that should be a positive symbol for the sport, is tarnished.
| |
| | |
ATP-Level Qualifier
Posts: 801
|
Wow! I admire Venus for voicing her thoughts. While it may be very possible that she would have enjoyed ample 'editorial assistance' in articulating her thoughts here, she has put forth her argument forcefully/authoritatively and intelligently. The management at the Championships at Wimbledon consist of a bunch of morons stuck in a time-warp! Like she has said, it is clearly not about the money, but about making a socio-political statement. ---Sad---...
Edited by jaykay 6/27/2006 12:56 AM
| |
| | |
ATP-Level Qualifier
Posts: 801
|
"...I posted one of these in both forums because I assumed that the MAJORITY of men would be in the ATP thread and vice versa for the WTA thread (I am not saying that this is a fact) and I wanted to see how the opinions in between men and women differentiated...."
P.S. I am a man (or perhaps a child in a man's body).
Edited by jaykay 6/27/2006 1:01 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 4443
Location: On a hot tennis court down South
|
I thought Venus made some good points, and I personally think that if the women players want equal prize money, that it would be the right thing to do given where we are as a society - I agree with the message point.
I also respect the tournament's stance on the number of sets, and it's clearly harder to win the men's final - even though the final itself was shorter last year, having to win three sets along the way means best case scenario for the men is the worst case scenario for the women.
So I say give them equal prize money, but change the rules so that they are identical - best of five sets. I remember a few years back that Jennifer Capriatti struggled in the heat of Australia for a best of three, so in spite of what Venus says, I think there will have to be a fitness adjustment for best of five, particularly for Aussie and USOpen.
Someone in the last forum argued that the quality of tennis on the mens side is higher, so that should determine the higher money. I disagreed with this point, stating that the quality on the mens side varies amongst itself, yet the prize money doesn't change for a poor final or Agassi/Sampras USO 2001.
It's a tough issue though, since true equality would mean just combining the tours, which I don't think we're quite ready for.
| |
| | |
ATP-Level Qualifier
Posts: 801
|
Column: Unequal Pay a Wimbledon Tradition
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 27, 2006
Filed at 4:56 p.m. ET
For those of us who live on the other side of the pond, the Brits have always seemed a quirky sort.
They break for afternoon tea, drink warm beer and endure endless queues and bad plumbing without complaint. They cling stubbornly to their own money, and share a strange fascination for the sun when it shines.
And, more often than not, they love their sports figures better when they fail than when they succeed. Tim Henman has never made it past the Wimbledon semifinals, but he'll always be known in England as ''Our Tim.''
So how surprising is it that, in an age of equality and political correctness, they continue to pay women less money to play tennis than men?
About as surprising as the rain that fell Monday, disrupting the first round of play at the All England Club for yet another year.
You see, the people who run the most famous tournament in tennis tend to be a stuffy sort. They make players wear white, continue to play tennis on green grass, and until only recently required everyone to make a cute little curtsy whenever the royals were in town.
Pay women the same as men? Jolly well, mate. Next they'll want cold beer and a roof over Centre Court.
Actually, they are putting a roof over Centre Court, though it won't be ready for another three years. And, for the first time, on-court officials and ball kids are wearing blue uniforms.
Even at stodgy old Wimbledon, the times are changing.
Some traditions die harder than others. So, once again this year, Maria Sharapova will be playing for less than Roger Federer, and Venus Williams won't have a chance to make as much as Andre Agassi.
The other major tennis championships -- the U.S., French and Australian Opens -- all pay their champions the same. But their winners are men and women. At Wimbledon, the titles are won by ladies and gentlemen.
Some of those ladies don't exactly act ladylike when it comes to wanting prize check equality.
''For us, it's not about earning more money or becoming any more well-off; it's really about an equality issue,'' Williams said. ''At this point it's become really that we represent women around the world. We're the premier sport for women. We would like to empower women around the world by showing that we are willing to fight for equality.''
This isn't exactly a fight for equality, though. More like a chat about it.
The draw sheets still show Williams and the other top players in the world scheduled to play Wimbledon. There's no talk of a boycott, no chance of anyone not playing because she believes so much about the social issue of equal pay.
When you look at the money involved, you understand why. The men's champion will earn some $1.2 million this year, and the women's winner will pocket $1.15 million.
You have to be awfully committed to the notion of equality to pass up a chance at that.
Why the All England Club can't throw an extra 50 grand into the ladies' pot is a mystery known only to the gentlemen in blazers who run it. Sell a few more strawberries and cream and the thing will pay for itself.
The mere suggestion of equal pay is met with such astonishment that you would think someone wanted to begin driving on the right side of the road. The blazers the other day defended themselves by trotting out statistics showing last year's women quarterfinalists earned $2,635 a game to $1,827 for the men.
That's because, they said, the men work harder for their wins. They play best-of-five-set matches to best-of-three for the women.
The blazers also noted that Wimbledon pays women 87 percent as much money as men, while the top women's regular tour events pay just 63 percent as much as the top men's tournaments.
The logic of the English can sometimes be as baffling as their love of bad food. But they have a point.
In an entirely politically correct world, women would be earning the same as men in all sports. Sharapova would make as much as Federer, the WNBA would be paying Sheryl Swoopes $14 million and female soccer players would be superstars instead of being unemployed.
None of that is happening because women's sports is still, well, women's sports. They're worth less because men in general don't watch them and they have yet to gain a big footing even among their own gender.
That's why the women's pro soccer league failed, and the WNBA is kept alive only by the grace of NBA owners. Women's golf exists only as a niche sport, and even the Williams sisters and the telegenic Sharapova haven't been enough to make women's tennis must-see TV.
The concept of equality in sports is an admirable one. Unfortunately, a very different reality exists in the marketplace.
It will take a lot longer than a fortnight at Wimbledon to change that.
------
Tim Dahlberg is a national sports columnist for The Associated Press. Write to him at tdahlberg@ap.org
| |
| | |
ATP-Level Qualifier
Posts: 801
|
I read this article on the New York Times website and I found it an interesting read. Just thought I'd post it here for all to read...
Enjoy!
| |
| | |
Challenger Main Draw
Posts: 327
Location: Germany
|
I would love to see women compete best of five for the same price money.
But then Wimbledon would need to spend so much more for its medical department.
"Secondly, tennis is unique in the world of professional sports. No other sport has men and women competing for a grand slam championship on the same stage, at the same time. So in the eyes of the general public the men’s and women’s games have the same value"
I don't see that point.
In Germany the soccer cup-final for women preceeds the one for men, same day, same stadium, same tv station - totally politically correct.
But the ratings are way down and the stadium is basically empty - so no, same stage does not mean same value for the public.
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 21
|
jaykay - 6/27/2006 12:55 AM
Wow! I admire Venus for voicing her thoughts. While it may be very possible that she would have enjoyed ample 'editorial assistance' in articulating her thoughts here, she has put forth her argument forcefully/authoritatively and intelligently. The management at the Championships at Wimbledon consist of a bunch of morons stuck in a time-warp! Like she has said, it is clearly not about the money, but about making a socio-political statement. ---Sad---...
Scuse me? People forget how articulate and intelligent the Williams sisters are. and unlike many players both have continued thier education while on the pro tour. This may have hurt thier play though.
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 21
|
messagesent - 6/27/2006 9:50 AM
I thought Venus made some good points, and I personally think that if the women players want equal prize money, that it would be the right thing to do given where we are as a society - I agree with the message point.
I also respect the tournament's stance on the number of sets, and it's clearly harder to win the men's final - even though the final itself was shorter last year, having to win three sets along the way means best case scenario for the men is the worst case scenario for the women.
So I say give them equal prize money, but change the rules so that they are identical - best of five sets. I remember a few years back that Jennifer Capriatti struggled in the heat of Australia for a best of three, so in spite of what Venus says, I think there will have to be a fitness adjustment for best of five, particularly for Aussie and USOpen.
Someone in the last forum argued that the quality of tennis on the mens side is higher, so that should determine the higher money. I disagreed with this point, stating that the quality on the mens side varies amongst itself, yet the prize money doesn't change for a poor final or Agassi/Sampras USO 2001.
It's a tough issue though, since true equality would mean just combining the tours, which I don't think we're quite ready for.
This is a well thought point. I too feel that the ladies should get equal prize money, but with the caveat that they play an equal amount of sets. In many 3 set venues where both mens and womens sides play there are equal prize money and that makes sense to me. I definately feel that the ladies are up to it and can play 5 sets in the majors like the lads do. After all is the New York Marathon distance differant for the women than for the men?
| |
| | |
Posts: 2183
|
Fedup - 6/29/2006 6:25 AM
If you truly want to achieve 'equality', you can't devide the players into classes....like ATP and WTA. They would need to compete together and whoever does well gets paid...... the women players've been protected long enough and some are not even grateful. Would the fans like to see true battle of the sexes on court (ATP&WTA mixed)? sure they do, then the feminists will have nothing to moan about.
Interesting, but I would personally take a pass on that. No offense! Men rallies aren't as long and usually defensive as women. The point is usually finshed in the blink of an eye. It's either in or out. Women's tennis involves more so grinding, so probably that's why they have three sets. Understand what I mean?
Edited by TheNewFederer 6/29/2006 3:30 PM
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 23
|
The fact that Murry or Federer would beat Venus or Serena doesn't make them better players. Your argument is ridiculous. The only reason this would happen is becuase there is a difference in strength between males and females; not a difference in the talent of the player. What do you want female players to do; go back in time and change their sex while forming into embryos? Venus is no less a champion than Roger Federer. Any female player's accomplishments or talents should stand alone and should not be compared to a man's. A top female player should not be compared to a top male player becuase the female player is the best in reference to the other players on the tour, not the males.
| |
| | |
Challenger Qualifier
Posts: 127
|
Discrimination on the basis of gender is not fair , but what if the basis is strictly economic?
The WNBA I believe gets help from the bosses of NBA when it comes to finances. Is it ok to say that WNBA should also receive the same money as the men do? At least economically speaking equality does not seem to be a financially viable option. Even at the college basketball games the seats for a women's game does not get filled up inspite of lower priced tickets - on the other hand one cannot get tickets for the men's game because of the demand and the wait could be a few years!
There is a similar difference between the LPGA and the PGA tour.
Coming back to tennis, the season ending women's championships held at Los Angeles for the last few years did not exactly draw a big audience - but the men's season ending championships in Houston did great as fas as ticket sales are concerned.
At the majors , the final few rounds on the men's side have a greater demand as far as booking of seats by the corporate houses are concerned.
Taking the above factors based strictly on economic terms it 'might' make sense for the disparity.
On the hand , voices favoring equality in pay feel that one of the reasons men and woman should get equal pay is because they at the 'same' tournament , for example Wimbledon. It should not persist with unequal pay. At the same time the prize money offered by the women's tour is less than what is offered on the men's tour.
Equality for equality's sake is not good either.
| |
| | |
Posts: 4443
Location: On a hot tennis court down South
|
shanka - 7/2/2006 12:27 PM
Discrimination on the basis of gender is not fair , but what if the basis is strictly economic?
The WNBA I believe gets help from the bosses of NBA when it comes to finances. Is it ok to say that WNBA should also receive the same money as the men do? At least economically speaking equality does not seem to be a financially viable option. Even at the college basketball games the seats for a women's game does not get filled up inspite of lower priced tickets - on the other hand one cannot get tickets for the men's game because of the demand and the wait could be a few years!
There is a similar difference between the LPGA and the PGA tour.
Coming back to tennis, the season ending women's championships held at Los Angeles for the last few years did not exactly draw a big audience - but the men's season ending championships in Houston did great as fas as ticket sales are concerned.
At the majors , the final few rounds on the men's side have a greater demand as far as booking of seats by the corporate houses are concerned.
Taking the above factors based strictly on economic terms it 'might' make sense for the disparity.
On the hand , voices favoring equality in pay feel that one of the reasons men and woman should get equal pay is because they at the 'same' tournament , for example Wimbledon. It should not persist with unequal pay. At the same time the prize money offered by the women's tour is less than what is offered on the men's tour.
Equality for equality's sake is not good either.
Welcome back Shanka!
There's no getting around the economics of it, is there? Many of us have understood for a while that this is why each make what they do, understanding that sponsorship and ticket sales are driving contributors. . .and it's not even really ticket sales. They could let people in for free, charge more to advertisers/sponsors, and would make just as much.
That being said, tournaments are making sure that they aren't in the public spotlight, so as to lose sponsorship/interest.
For me, until you're ready to mix the leagues (we're not even close), then just pay them equal and let them each play five sets.
| |
| | |
Legend
Posts: 5248
Location: on a voyage in space ship Earth
|
Part of the reason that the money on the women's tour is less is because of depth of field. The women usually only hold one major tournament in a week while sometimes the men will have three or four going on at the same time. It's called depth of field and the women's field just doen't have it yet, maybe with the increase in interest in tennis in China, India and other countries it will increase this depth in time but I'm not holding my breath waiting.
| |
| | |
Posts: 4443
Location: On a hot tennis court down South
|
Fedup - 7/3/2006 11:39 AM
I have never seen in any other sport, a group of inferior ability gets the same money as the higher group. I have nothing against female tennis players, but in tennis they are the inferior group yet they are an exception. This is exactly what 'inequality' is, group of inferior players want 'equal' pay!!!!!!!!! so why don't challenger level players complain about 'equality' and demand their tournaments to pay same money as ATP? why don't junior players get the same? Inferior players deserve lower pay, unless they upgrade themselves to compete the same. For this reason, female players have been protected too much - they are not exposed to top level competition and yet those bitc**s are not grateful!!! so equal pay is guaranted for both sexes, why not for all ages and divisions? whatever level you are capable of, everybody gets equal pay! equal my as*!
One example would be the NBA - American NBA players make the most money out of all players in the world, yet haven't brought home a gold medal or 1st place in international competion, since when - in this decade? Early 90's?
Major league baseball is the same story - how'd we do in the international tournament with pros?
I hear you on the "who would win" issue, but honestly mixing the leagues is the last thing they would want to do - sponsors, not the players. They are just now starting lines of racquets for women, and have you checked out how much Sharapova's Nike dresses go for?
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 11
|
Fedup - 6/29/2006 6:25 AM
If you truly want to achieve 'equality', you can't devide the players into classes....like ATP and WTA. They would need to compete together and whoever does well gets paid...... the women players've been protected long enough and some are not even grateful. Would the fans like to see true battle of the sexes on court (ATP&WTA mixed)? sure they do, then the feminists will have nothing to moan about.
With respect the fans do not want to see that since it would make for ridiculously one sided games.
look, if women are demanding equal pay why don't they put together a tour which attracts equal money? The reality is that women's Slams and the likes of key biscayne are parasiting on the ATP tour. When they are out on their own WTA tier 1 events get 1.3 million dollars compared to ATP Masters 2.3 million.
This is the botttom line. Men's tennis is a BIGGER sport than womens just as it is bigger than the Juniors and Boys. it attracts more money because basically the market sees that the TV ratings, the attendances, the corporate interest etc is greater. If they were not attached to men's events womens slams would be nowhere near as publicised as they are.
Good luck to the girls but at the other slams they are in truth hugely overpaid adn it is nothing to do with sets played or depth of competition. They are overpaid because without the men's tour they would be nowhere near that figure in a women's only eventwhich as we see on tour week in week out would be unable to attract the same interest.
| |
| | |
Futures Main Draw
Posts: 95
Location: Santiago, Chile
|
this is a great debate and i'm glad someone has brought it up.
this whole issue is not about politically correctness, but economics. it is a simple demand concept. ATP events receive better ratings than WTA events. Better ratings definitely means more income for sponsors and TV channels. And all this in turn will affect the size of a player's paycheck. But why is the demand bigger for male events as opposed to women's? well, simply put, men's tennis show a faster and stronger more fit tennis. while women's tennis is slower, and not as fit, hell, one of the williams sister had to forfeit a match because she suffered a blister, oh, and the most notorious stomach ache that Henin suffered. So based on this, why should women get paid the same amount? this is the same as saying Lisa Leslie or a Swoopes should get paid the same amount as a Kobe or a Tim Duncan.
I am not for women playing best of five sets because at the end all it will amount to is who is better fit and not skills. Best of three is already a very trying experience, let alone five. Women's tennis will never be viewed in the same level as men's tennis, just as the LPGA is not the same as the PGA, WNBA does not equal NBA.
I am not a sexist, as I am an ardent supporter of equal wage for women and men. if both sexes can perform their work just as effectively, both should definitely receive equal pay. but this whole ATP and WTA is not the case, and thus both do not deserve equal pay.
If, however, for some reason, in the future, women's tennis gets just as much demand as men's tennis, women should definitely get paid just as much as men.
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 11
|
Johnjacos hits the nail on the head. It is nothing to do with sets played or time on court. players are not employees. it is to do with the earning potential of the game which is set by how attractive watching the players play is to television viewers and match going spectators as a consequence how attractive the sport in to the corporate sponsorship world.
The truth is that Venus adn the rest of the girls for all their eloquence is seeking equal pay only get the huge sums gotten the Slams at such as Key Biscayne when their tour overlaps with the ATP. As a stand alond tour Tier 1 WTA events cannot attract more than 1.3 million dollar purses adn that reflects not politics, not discrimination, not backwardness but rather simply economics.
It may be cruel to say it but the fact is that at the other 3 slams the women are actually overpaid in terms of fan and corporate income to the overall tournament funds. Indeed at 94% of mens earnings they are siubstantially overpaid at wimbledon as well when one analyses what attracts the income there.
Is it really an advance for women to argue for parity for men in the half dozen events in which they can piggyback on the ATP tour while accepting theat stand alone WTA events simply do not compete? Isn't that in truth - in pure economic terms - no more than a hand out?
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 10
Location: Toronto
|
Woa. I find myself in the ATP Tour Boards and here comes a real eye-popping issue. Firstly, I cannot believe the number of egotistical rounds you men are having a go at, pronouncing the over-paid salaries of these women players like they're too spoiled and such. Let's look at the US Open model and their take on "equality"; put yourselves in their shoes and ask, "Why did they believe that the women deserved as much as the men?" It's the way modern society works-forget what's utterly and politically correct for once and use your logic. Is all this attention and (bad) publicity worth their Pride for the ATP Tour? I'm not saying they should buy it off and reward the women equal prize money for that reason, but it's a thought.
We KNOW it must happen some day. The All-England Tennis Club is merely trying to pass and buy these extra years, using the lesser sets played, lesser TV ratings, and lesser quality played arguments to keep their defences running. It's a hollow facade in which we know that the men's side would not be the same if the women's side were not as "prestigious". Both tours are intertwined, and are lucky to have one another. Yes, we can talk about Federer all day, but it makes it much more interesting to mix in a little Clijsters and what they're up to.
We've got something special, this dual tennis enormity. Don't let it be flawed by a simple question of equality-accept what's right, and not what's easy.
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 35
|
I think that both tours should be paid equal.In my mind it makes no sense and there is really no reason to pay one or the other less.
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 32
|
Let's keep this simple. Women do DESERVE equal pay.
But if they want equal pay than play Best of 5 sets and it is as easy as that.
If they want equal pay then play under equal conditions so that men nor women can complain about the prize money. If women want equal pay then play under same conditions and then their will be no further arguement from anyone.
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 8
|
I agree with you. All the players are playing the same game so why are they all not paid the same amount of money?
-----
'Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.'
| |
| | |
Futures Main Draw
Posts: 97
|
the_first_twin - 7/27/2006 12:09 PM
I agree with you. All the players are playing the same game so why are they all not paid the same amount of money?
Ok if you and I are sales people and you bring in more revenue than I, should I get paid as much as you? We are both doing the same job.
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 5
|
Men generate more money so they get paid more.
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 8
|
I believe that if two people, regardless of gender, are doing the same job then they should get paid equal amounts of money. However, I realize in our day and age this is unlikely to happen.
-----
'Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.'
| |
| |
Jump to page : 1 2
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] | |
|
|
|
